/ REGD.GOA·S . Panaji, 18th August, 1998 (Sravana 27, 1920) SERIES II No. 20 GOVERNMENT OF GOA EXTRAORDINARY No.3 GOVERNMENT OF GOA 6. Shri Chandrakant Chodankar. Goa Legislature Secretariat 7. Dr. Carmo Pegado. 8. Smt. Fatima D'Sa. Notification 9. Shri Jagdish Acharya. No. LA! A!40421l998 10. Shri Deo G. Mandrekar. ... Respondents. The following decision dated 14th August, 1998 of the Speaker of Legislative Assembly of State of Goa, under Article 191 (2) of JUDGEMENT the Constitution of India of the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India is hereby notified an.d published. 1. The two Petitions have been filed for a declaration that the No. 117 The following decision dated 14th August, 1998 of the Respondents therein, have become subject ~o Disqualification under Speaker of Legislative Assembly of State of Goa under the Tenth ScheduJe of the Constitution of India. Article 191(2) of the Constitution of India under Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India is hereby notified 2. Since the Petitiohs raise identical and inter-connected issues and published. and the Respondents in Disqualification Petition No. 1198 are also Respondents amongst others in Disqualification Petition No. 2/98. ,;:** these Petitions were taken up together and common arguments advanced and therefore, can be conveniently disposed by a Common Judgement. Petition No.1 of 1998 under Article·191(2) of the The learned Advocates for the parties requested that,both the petitions Constitution of India by Shri Pratapsingh R. Rane. be dubbed together. VIS ~. Both Petitions were filed on 27th July, 1998. On perusing 1. Dr. Wilfred A. D'Souza. the Petitions and the annexures thereto, it was verified that the petitions complied with the requirements of Rule. 6 of "The Members of 2. Shri Dayanand G. Narvekar. the Goa Legislati ve Assembly (Disqualification on Grounds of Defection) 3. Shri Subhash A. Shirodkar. Rules, 1986" hereinafter referred to as "The DisquaIificationRules 1986" for short and therefore Notice for interim relief was directed 4. Shri Pandurang Bhatale. to be issued to each of the Respondents in each Petition returnable 5. ShrL Pandu V. Naik. ... Respondents. on 28th July, 1998 and as far as the main Petitions, summons were directed to be issued to the Respondents in each Petition, returnable Petition No.2 of 1998 under A.rticle 191 (2) oftheConstitu­ on 3rd August, 1998. tion of India by Dr. Wilfred Mesquita. VIS 4. In the Notice dated 27-7-1998, for grant of interim relief, it had correctly been mentioned that the question of grant of interim I. Dr. Wilfred A. D·Souza. relief, the Petitions would be heard on 28-7-1998~ However, inad­ vertently the Public Notice.issued in the Press contained the returnable 2. Shri Dayanand G. Narvekar. date for interim relief as 28th August, 1998 instead of 28th July, 1998. 3. Shri Subhash A. Shirodkar. 4. Shri Pandurang Bhatale. 5. On 28th July, 1998, learned counsels for the Petitioners were present. Despite waiting for qUIte a while, neither Respondents nor 5. Shri Pandu V. Naik. any person on their behalf appeared. At about 12.45 p. m., Petitioner 284 . OFFICIAL GAZETTE - GOVT. OF GOA SERIES II No. 20 .. ; (EXTRAORDINARY No.3) 18TH AUGUST, 1998 Dr. Wilfred Menezes Mesquita through his learned counsel, made 13. At the outset of the hearing, Shri Nadkarni, learned Advocate an application renewing the request for ad-interim relief. After hearing for the petitioners drew my attention to sub-rule 3(b) of Rule 7 the learned counsel for the afore-referred Petitioner, ad-interim order of the Disqualification Rules, 1986 which requires a copy of the was passed at about 1.30 p. m., which is on record, and the matter Petition to be forwarded to the Leader of the Legislature Party for was posted for confinnation of ad-interim relief on 29th July, 1998. his comments and since Disqualification Petition No. 2/98 was not filed by the Leader of the Indian National Congress Legislature Party In the meanwhile, the Secretariat of the Legislative Assembly received he contended that notice ought to be issued to him and in the meanwhile copy of a communication addressed to the Governor of Goa wherein the question of interim relief could be proceeded with and, the hearing it was inter alia contended that Speaker had no powers to pass interim in the main Petition be adjourned. Against this, Dr. Coelho Pereira orders, which has also been placed on record. vehemently opposed this contention. Dr. Coelho Pereira submitted that the requirement was not mandatory as the Disqualification Rules 6. On 29-7-1998, Petitioners were represented by their Counsels are mere procedural- rules and not binding and at any rate, the Leader and Respondents were represented by Dr. 1. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior of the Indian National Congress Legislature Party, Shri Pratapsing t.dvocate with Shri Mahesh Rane. Rane. had himself filed Disqualification petition No. 1198 and not­ withstanding these facts, he would not raise any objection at any 7. Arguments were heard. However since learned Senior Advocate future stage as to the non-compliance of this provision. He opposed Dr. Coelho Pereira made a plea that he required time to go through . any adjournment of the hearing and d.~manded that Final Heanng the Petition and annexures and also be prepared for arguments, the of the Main Petition be proceeded with and the question of separating Petitions were adjourned on the question of confirmation of ad interim the arguments OD merits and arguments on interim reliefs in the present rellef to 31-7-1998 at 4.30 p. m. cases, ought not to be permitted. I am unable to accept the argument of Shri Nadkarni. I agree 8. In the meanwhile, the Respondents filed Writ Petitions before with Dr. Coelho Pereira that the hearing of the matters should proceed the Honourable High Court of Bombay, Panaji Bench being Writ since the Rules are mere procedural rules. I am further of the opinion Petition No. 296/98 and Writ Petition No. 297/98 raising various that since Dr. Coelho Pereira himself has submitted that he will pleas as contained therein, copies of which are on record. not raise any objection as to non-compliance of Rule 6(3)(b) of the Disqualification Rules, 1986, no point would be served in further 9. On the next date of hearing viz. on 31-7-1998, request was delaying the matter, on the point raised by Shri Nadkarni. I therefore made on behalf of the Respondents for grant of time, to enable the directed the respective advocates to proceed. Both parties expressed Respondents to file a detailed reply on the question of interim relief that they did not want to lead any evidence and were fully anxious as also on the merits of the Petitions. Therefore, adjournment was to argue the matters. Accordingly, arguments were fully heard till granted and the matters were adjourned to 3rd August, 1998 at 10.30 1.45 p. m. on 4-8-1998 itself. a. m. viz. when summons in the Petitions had been made returnable. I have heard Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni for the Petitioners and 10. On 3rd August, 1998, Respondents filed a comprehensive Dr. 1. E. Coelho Pereira for the Respondents at considerable length. reply to each of the Petitions on the question of interim relief and 14. In view of the plea of bias raised by the Respondents, and also on merits of each Petition. On request of Shri S. Vahidulla, specially on account of the Motion of Confidence proposed to be learned Advocate for .the Petitioners, the matters were adjourned to tabled, I would have avoided to decide the matter because of such Tuesday, 4th August, 1998 at 10.30 a. m. accusation. However, since I am left with no option. but to decide the matter, I propose to go into the questions honestly and to the II. On 3rd August, 1998, the Honourable High Court pronounced best of my ability. its Judgements in the above-referred Writ Petitions wherein the 15. For appreciation of the controversy between the parties it Honourable High Court upheld the power of the Speaker to grant may be necessary to advert to the pleadings of the respective parties, interim including ad interim Orders. For reasons set out in its which can be briefly summarised as hereinunder. Judgement, the High Court quashed the ad interim Orde~s passed on 28-7-1998. a) The Petitioner, Shri Pratapsingh Rane_has filed a Disqualification Petition No. 1198 on 27th July, 1998 for a declaration that I have been set right and corrected by the Honourable High Court the Resp0r.dents therein have become subject to Disqualification for passing the interim Order on the ground that I had taken decision under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. in undue haste, which was in violation of the principles of natural justice. I have therefore fallen in line that I should not hastily decide b) The Petitioner relied upon the intimation dated 25-7-9& (Exb. the present matter and have therefore to objectively to decide the B Colly. to the Petition) whereto annexed is a copy' of the matter in accordance with the principles of law, laid down by the Order dated 24-7-98 signed by Shri Shantaram Naik, the President Honourable High Court. of the Goa Pradesh Congress Committee expelling five Members namely Shri Chandrakant Chodankar, Shri Jagdish Govind 12. On 4th August, 1998, learned Advocates Shri A. N. S. Nadkarni Acharya, Shri Deo Mandrekar, Smt. Fatima 0' Sa and Shri withShri C. A. Ferreira and Shri S. Vahidulla, appeared for the Petitioners.